Overview

Brief Summary

Biology

These and some other Australian ants (the 'bulldog ants (Myrmeciinae)) belong to an ancient linage and have simpler social systems than other modern ants (5). Mature Nothomyrmecia colonies are generally small at 50 - 120 adults (2). The newly mated queens initiate colony foundation in groups of 2 or 3; the dominant female subsequently evicts the subordinate individuals from the nest once the first workers appear (4). The workers of the colony tend the brood and actively hunt for food on trees near the nests. They use their stings to stun prey, such as other invertebrates, which are returned without dissection (5). Unlike most species of ants, Nothomyrmecia workers are able to tolerate low temperatures and tend to forage after dusk when temperatures have dropped to 5 - 10 °C (2). It is thought that the low temperatures may assist foraging, making prey slower and therefore less likely to escape (2). Workers navigate between the nests and forage trees by using the silhouette of the tree canopy like a map (4). The most significant and unique primitive features of Nothomyrmecia are behavioural (5). Unlike all other studied ants, there is virtually no evidence of worker division of labour within the nests, although some individuals spend extended periods near the queen, and some may act as guards within the nest entrances for up to several days (5). Field experiments involving the marking of foragers and later excavation of subject colonies, show that all but one or two workers may leave the nest to forage over a period of only 2 or 3 nights; the exceptions are believed to be the entrance guards (5). Thus the most elementary and minimal level of task specialisation seen in other ants (that between foragers and in-nest specialists) is absent. Otherwise the workers forage alone and show no evidence of cooperative behaviour, apart from living together in the nest (5). Nothomyrmecia has been referred to as the 'least sociable' of all ants (5).

Article rating
from 0 people

Description

This ant of ancient lineage is described as a 'living fossil.' It is perhaps the most 'primitive' ant still alive today (2). Ants are social insects, which typically live in colonies within nests comprising a single reproductive 'queen' and a force of non-reproductive 'workers', of whom the queen is the mother. Unlike the workers, virgin queens possess wings that are used only once for flight in a mating swarm, following which the wings are shed and the now fertilised queens begin colony foundation, typically alone (5). Seasonally, nests include immatures: eggs, larvae and pupae. Males, which are winged and develop from unfertilised eggs, are present only periodically each year, prior to the breeding season (5). The individual workers typically perform different roles; a characteristic known as 'polyethism' or 'division of labour' (5). Minimally, there are individuals specialised as foragers, working outside the nests, and others, which seldom leave the nests but perform in-nest activities, such as brood care. In advanced species these worker 'castes' may be physically differentiated, often including large-headed 'soldiers' (5). Nothomyrmecia workers are pale yellow in colour and have large eyes, distinctively long mandibles and a powerful sting (3); there is no soldier caste (5). Unusually, the queens have extremely reduced wings that are unlikely to be functional for flight (2). Virgin queens probably mate with flying males on tree trunks or the ground; the function of the reduced wings is not known (5).

Article rating
from 0 people

Distribution

Range

Originally known from extreme southern Western Australia, this species was thought to be extinct until it was rediscovered near Poochera in South Australia in 1977 (4). Its known range has been recently extended to other areas of southwestern South Australia (5).

Other sequences that do not yet meet barcode criteria may also be available.

TTTATAATTGGAGGATTTGGAAATTTTTTAGTTCCACTTATACTAGGAGCCCCTGATATAGCTTACCCTCGAATAAATAACTTAAGATTCTGACTTCTACCTCCATCTATCACTTTACTAATCCTAAGAAATTTTATCAGAAATGGAACAGGAACTGGATGAACAATTTACCCTCCTTTAGCATCAAATATTTTTCATAGAGGACCTTCAATTGACCTAACAATCTTTTCCCTTCATATTGCAGGAATATCTTCTATTCTTGGAGCTATTAATTTTATCTCAACAATTATTAACATATATAATAAAAATATATCAATAGACAAAATCCCTTTACTAGTATGAGCAATTCTTATTACCGCTATTCTTCTATTATTAGCCCTCCCCGTCTTAGCAGGAGCAATTACTATACTTTTAACTGATCGAAACTTAAATACATCTTTTTTTGATCCTTCTGGAGGAGGGGACCCAATTTTATACCAACACTTATTTTGATTTTTTGGTCATCCTGAAGTATATATTCTAATTCTCCCAGGATTTGGTCTAATTTCTCATATTATTATAAGAGAAAGAGGAAAAAAAGAAACATTTGGATCTCTAAGAATAATTTATGCAATAACAGCTATTGGATTCCTAGGTTTCATTGTTTGAGCTCATCACATATTTACAATTGGCCTAGACGTTGACACCCGAG-- end --

Article rating
from 0 people

Threats

This species has a restricted distribution, and is known only from a small number of sites. Nothomyrmecia is closely associated with eucalyptus trees and is therefore extremely vulnerable to their removal or damage by fire. An underground telephone line was installed at the famous rediscovery site near Poochera, and this led to the almost complete destruction of the then only known population (4).

Article rating
from 0 people

Wikipedia

Nothomyrmecia

Nothomyrmecia macrops, sometimes called the dinosaur ant or dawn ant,[2] is the only extant species of its genus. Its morphological similarity with the Baltic Eocene fossil ant genus Prionomyrmex has resulted in the species often being considered a living fossil and stimulated several studies on its morphology, behavior, ecology, and chromosomes.

Contents

It is found in the cool regions of the mallee of southern South Australia and Western Australia in old-growth areas populated with various Eucalyptus species.[3] These ants were of special interest to entomologists since their similarity with the Eocene Baltic fossil Prionomyrmex was thought to offer a chance to observe and study "primitive" ant social organization. However, N. macrops is known to possess some behavioural habits of more advanced ant species, and morphological[4] and molecular[5] phylogenies of the ants indicate that other ant lineages such as Ponerinae are more properly considered "primitive" within the family.

Nothomyrmecia was originally discovered in 1931 near Balladonia in Western Australia. At the time it was thought to be living proof that ants had evolved from wasps. However the amateur naturalists who discovered the species had failed to record collection sites, so no other specimens could be found in the area. In 1977 a solitary worker ant from the species was found by Dr. Bob Taylor and his party of entomologists from Canberra at Poochera, 1300 km (800 mi) from the site of the 1931 discovery. A further colony was found at Penong, 180 km (110 mi) to the west of Poochera, but the fate of the colony discovered in 1931 is not known.[6]

Nothomyrmecia was described in 1934 by Clark [7] as a new genus of Myrmeciinae, though with some hesitation due to its apparent similarity with the Eocene Baltic amber fossil Prionomyrmex unknown to him and of which remained only literature descriptions and figures. In 1951 Clark [8] proposed a new ant subfamily for his Nothomyrmecia, based on morphological differences with the other Myrmeciinae. Clark’s placement of Nothomyrmecia in isolated position within the ants was confirmed by Taylor’s rediscovery of this species in 1977 [9] and was universally accepted by the scientific community until 2003. In 1998, Baroni Urbani described a new Baltic fossil Prionomyrmex species. After examining specimens of N. macrops, Baroni Urbani stated that his new species and N. macrops belonged to the same genus, in which case the name Prionomyrmex would replace the name Nothomyrmecia and the subfamily Nothomyrmeciinae must be called Prionomyrmeciinae.[10] Dlussky & Perfilieva in 2003 [11] separated again Nothomyrmecia from Prionomyrmex on the base of the fusion of an abdominal segment. In the same year Ward & Brady,[12] using a different, broader set of characters, reached the same conclusion as Dlussky and Perfileeva [11] and, in addition, transferred both Nothomyrmecia and Prionomyrmex as distinct genera in the older subfamily Myrmeciinae. Later on, Dlussky [13] also refers only to Ward & Brady’s classification.[12] However, Baroni Urbani (2005, 2008),[14][15] suggested additional evidence in favor of his former interpretation as opposed to that of Ward and Brady’s[12] arguments. This view, however has not been used in subsequent relevant papers, which continue to use the classification of Ward and Brady, rejecting that of Baroni Urbani.[5][16][17][13]